It's almost like healthcare today. So many folks don't feel the need to pony up the funds to pay for health insurance, but if circumstances find them in need of care, they feel fully entitled.

Regarding the fire in Tennessee, I'm glad that the fire department had the balls to turn their backs on folks that think that a free ride is their right, particularly in light of the fact that the fire was due to irresponsibility of the property owner to manage and control a fire that they generated.

Now, I'm being decidedly out of school here from a liberal point of view, but I still have to doubt that I have the support of the tea party or Republicans on my position.

Disregarding for a moment the sheer barbarity of letting the animals burn alive in the course of teaching that man his lesson:

How near sighted is this system? Did you read the article? The neighbor, who's paid his dues, offered cash for the firefighters to intervene. What did he do wrong? How does he deserve a smoldering lot next to his house?

What about the firefighters, who against their professional ethics and best practice have to watch a fire burn out of control up to the point it endangers others?

How about these who will pay henceforth $150 instead of $75 for fire protection because of the lawsuit that this man's insurance will likely wage against the department? Do you think for a moment, the man remembered to pay his insurance bills but was too greedy for the $75? I don't think so.

Everyone loses here, because a few basic principles of a civil society were thrown out of the window for the sake of ideology. Pretty fucked up._________________florian - ny22

One of the three municipalities in my local metropolis has the same fire dept issue as has been in the national news lately: taxes cover FD expenses only within the city. The law, the voters, the media, and a home or two burning down have left no doubt in anyone's mind that in the county outside the city, you pay your extra FD bill or your home fire will not be fought. Just as with any other insurance (except Obamacare), you have to buy your insurance BEFORE you suffer a loss or the whole concept of insurance collapses.

In Colorado, the law (written pre-Obama) requires an ER, receiving any state funds, to treat anyone coming through the door, or transfer to some other qualified facility. These means most rural hospitals.

This can be devasting if an uninsured patient shows up with a very premature baby or a severe injury. Obama's health care plan would reduce this by requiring all to carry insurance.

With this said, my personal attitude is "if you don't pay, you don't get services". Insurance only works if you pay - before! I believe you SHOULD be able to opt out. Just don't come to my (taxpayer) ER!

This is tough to enforce. I know my friends in health care could not stand by and watch a patient die, because they have no insurance. So, the HC system is open for scamming and irresponsible behavior.

That's the kind of decision an agency or individual makes once, long before a situation actually arises. I tell ya one thing, though ... I would decide up front and inform my chain of command that rules don't apply when human or animal lives are concerned.

In Colorado, the law (written pre-Obama) requires an ER, receiving any state funds, to treat anyone coming through the door, or transfer to some other qualified facility. These means most rural hospitals.

This can be devasting if an uninsured patient shows up with a very premature baby or a severe injury. Obama's health care plan would reduce this by requiring all to carry insurance.

With this said, my personal attitude is "if you don't pay, you don't get services". Insurance only works if you pay - before! I believe you SHOULD be able to opt out. Just don't come to my (taxpayer) ER!

This is tough to enforce. I know my friends in health care could not stand by and watch a patient die, because they have no insurance. So, the HC system is open for scamming and irresponsible behavior.

It must have been a difficult decision for the firefighters to make.

Fire safety is a community issue - not an individual benefit.

The only reason someone should be allowed to opt-out, would be if they are self-sufficient, i.e. have fire marshall approved firefighting capabilities. In all other cases, local and state government should not make emergency services optional, IMHO.

I want to believe that my emergency responders will NOT wait and make sure that my insurance is paid up before they roll out the hoses. That is simply bad practice and to burden them with such decisions, like you said, is simply not appropriate and 100% counterproductive._________________florian - ny22

I agree. My comparison of Health Insurance and Community Services really is apples and oranges and on review - wrong!

Treating community and emergency services as an insurance plan was not accurate.

Now, living in a rural area, there is often resistance to creation of taxing entities (such as fireprotection districts). Relying on "donations" or "fees" like this for emergency services is really a bad idea. It can take a lot to get a special district established and funded, so; I can see how this situation got set up.

It may mean that an emergency provider has no choice, really, to respond to any emergency in their area. If there is no way to enforce funding, what can they do?

Big question then. How do you FORCE folks to be personally responsible without infringing on personal rights?

The same way Obamacare does. You just damn the constitution (Obama is a constitutional lawyer), literally scoff (Pelosi) when asked "What about the constitution?" directly about this issue, put it in a bill (Pelosi, Reid, the SEIU), force legislators to approve it without knowing what's in it (Pelosi), LIE from the White House and Congressional bully pulpits (all 3 mofos) about what's in it or not in it, and dare anyone to even consider trying to repeal it.

Anyone who argues with one word of that simply has not done even the minimal homework that should be required of every voter.

And anyone who claims my resulting resentment of the SOB in the White House is because he's black would be very stupid to say that to my face. There's little chance of that, of course, because most of you are too cowardly to even admit your real identities here.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum